Ballistic missile Nasr: A bigger threat from Pakistan

[jayron]

Don't invade us there will be no Nasr flying. Plain & Simple

Don't send your jobless punjabis to kill our people. We won't invade you. Before that try stopping the daily invasions of US drones and Talibunnies

 

[MilSpec]

You know when India reserves the right to retaliate in nuclear terms ? A nuclear/biological/chemical attack on indian soil or it's TROOPS ANYWHERE will suffer permanent annhilation through a full scale nuclear response !!

Lets add nuclear annhilation of both India and pakistan... Trust me there is no winner in this game....

So- dont provoke India with assymetric actions>>>> No CSD IA attacks >>>> No Nasr >>>> No Kaboom >>> I still have a house to come back to in India>>>

 

[Safriz]

You know when India reserves the right to retaliate in nuclear terms ? A nuclear/biological/chemical attack on indian soil or it's TROOPS ANYWHERE will suffer permanent annhilation through a full scale nuclear response !!

says who?

Indian Jantaa and many Ministers were war warmongering and media was doing the same very recently..In that "Kashmir borders soldier beheading" case.
But did the Commanders attack Pakistan?
Well by your doctrine they had Public support,Media support and government support and had fired a few missiles on Pakistan..the non-nuclear ones or had sent the air force attacking some targets deep inside Pakistan and "Jantaa" had cheered and jeered them..The political leadership had gained a lot by doing this..
But none of that happened...Any ideas why?

Pakistan had never fired Nuclear weapons on India If they had sent Sukhois to strike a few military bases..But India did not do that.
The fact is that the balance of power between the countries isn't that Imbalanced as we believe...

One more thing is that life is precious and death is ugly...Launching a disproportionate attack that kills civilians is heavy on conscience,heavy on international relations and costs a lot..
This goes for both India and Pakistan..
Tactical nukes will kill soldiers who are attacking but Strategic nukes will kill people in homes..On both sides..and no military commander will randomly do that.

 

[perplexed]

says who?

Indian Jantaa and many Ministers were war warmongering and media was doing the same very recently..In that "Kashmir borders soldier beheading" case.
But did the Commanders attack Pakistan?
Well by your doctrine they had Public support,Media support and government support and had fired a few missiles on Pakistan..the non-nuclear ones or had sent the air force attacking some targets deep inside Pakistan and "Jantaa" had cheered and jeered them..The political leadership had gained a lot by doing this..
But none of that happened...Any ideas why?

Pakistan had never fired Nuclear weapons on India If they had sent Sukhois to strike a few military bases..But India did not do that.
The fact is that the balance of power between the countries isn't that Imbalanced as we believe...

One more thing is that life is precious and death is ugly...Launching a disproportionate attack that kills civilians is heavy on conscience,heavy on international relations and costs a lot..
This goes for both India and Pakistan..
Tactical nukes will kill soldiers who are attacking but Strategic nukes will kill people in homes..On both sides..and no military commander will randomly do that.

? Last I heard score was 3-2 .. but let's not get into counting games.. cause uncountable would have died on both sides..

But India has billions on it's side so.. even if half of our academicians and economists survive, which we can manage, I see light for India at the end of the tunnel ?

Lets add nuclear annhilation of both India and pakistan... Trust me there is no winner in this game....

So- dont provoke India with assymetric actions>>>> No CSD IA attacks >>>> No Nasr >>>> No Kaboom >>> I still have a house to come back to in India>>>

REMEMBER using nukes would have been thrust upon us.. and forget about winning, India will be at the receiving end since it doesn't have first use policy. SO just to get back to the balancing line, India would have to nuke back pakistan.. So winner or no winner India will have to take the plunge.. Plus if India doesn't use nukes after being nuked then it would take minutes for CHina to order it's troops to march ahead and capture arunachal or whatever land they deem see fit !!

 

[perplexed]

says who?

Indian Jantaa and many Ministers were war warmongering and media was doing the same very recently..In that "Kashmir borders soldier beheading" case.
But did the Commanders attack Pakistan?
Well by your doctrine they had Public support,Media support and government support and had fired a few missiles on Pakistan..the non-nuclear ones or had sent the air force attacking some targets deep inside Pakistan and "Jantaa" had cheered and jeered them..The political leadership had gained a lot by doing this..
But none of that happened...Any ideas why?

Pakistan had never fired Nuclear weapons on India If they had sent Sukhois to strike a few military bases..But India did not do that.
The fact is that the balance of power between the countries isn't that Imbalanced as we believe...

One more thing is that life is precious and death is ugly...Launching a disproportionate attack that kills civilians is heavy on conscience,heavy on international relations and costs a lot..
This goes for both India and Pakistan..
Tactical nukes will kill soldiers who are attacking but Strategic nukes will kill people in homes..On both sides..and no military commander will randomly do that.

Yeah please tell this to US and Japan... study history critically.. US became a diplomatic behemooth !! We are not sayin we will be a diplomatic power but the shitstorm nukes would have kicked will not be totally unmanageable !!

 

[Edevelop]

In recent test, the missile's range increased, i think.

 

[Safriz]

Yeah please tell this to US and Japan... study history critically.. US became a diplomatic behemooth !! We are not sayin we will be a diplomatic power but the shitstorm nukes would have kicked will not be totally unmanageable !!

All of you talking of 'nuclear anninilation' need to go back and read about nuclear weapons.

Currently neither india nor Pakistan have fusion weapons,both have only fission nukes.
Fission nukes do not have megaton range power .
For that reason none of the two countries can cause a total annihilation as their nukes are of low yeild.
Any nuclear war between the countries will be tactical,not strategic .

and in that field pakistan has the edge.

 

[KRAIT]

Nasr is for use inside Pakistani territory.If India advances inside Pakistan and Pakistani forces are overwhelmed,it may be used..
Use "Inside Pakistani territory" isnt the same as used on Indian territory...

Kindly read India's No First Use policy. Any attack on India or Indian forces using Nukes will be regarded as same.

Kindly read the thread regarding it.

 

[perplexed]

All of you talking of 'nuclear anninilation' need to go back and read about nuclear weapons.

Currently neither india nor Pakistan have fusion weapons,both have only fission nukes.
Fission nukes do not have megaton range power .
For that reason none of the two countries can cause a total annihilation as their nukes are of low yeild.
Any nuclear war between the countries will be tactical,not strategic .

and in that field pakistan has the edge.

LOL u really think so ? ANd why do you think India wouldn't have developed fusion bomb ? WHen israel is giving all the goodies why not a fusion bomb ?

U sound as if the entire battle will be with tactical nukes which is totally wrong.. a quick and judgmental response will come through the Kalam-15 missile and maybe few years downt he line, Kalam-4s ..

ANd yeah only few millions of people will die directly from a nuclear attack.. rest will die of radiation ! So total anhilation is altogether a possibility !

 

[Kaniska]

Don't invade us there will be no Nasr flying. Plain & Simple

To be honest...do you really think that India will invade??? Give me an honest answer???If you say yes, that means you are just overestimating India's political will power to invade a nation? And 2nd thing is Pakistan is not just a rag tag nation that India will just invade it...and i feel India knows it very well....

Now I would say that you should rephrase your word like " Donot invade us...we will not use atom bomb".....

 

[for truth]

All of you talking of 'nuclear anninilation' need to go back and read about nuclear weapons.

Currently neither india nor Pakistan have fusion weapons,both have only fission nukes.
Fission nukes do not have megaton range power .
For that reason none of the two countries can cause a total annihilation as their nukes are of low yeild.
Any nuclear war between the countries will be tactical,not strategic .

and in that field pakistan has the edge.

the bombs that were dropped on japan were mere 20 kiloton bombs,yet it completely wiped out the cities, a 40 kiloton bomb would twice more destructive,so, in case of India and Pakistan, a kiloton bomb is good a strategic.

and India will not send its troops into Pakistan at the beginning, it will only happen after the aerial raids are done, this will only happen after Pakistani air targets are taken down, in any case, Nasr missile carriers will be target of aerial raids.

LOL u really think so ? ANd why do you think India wouldn't have developed fusion bomb ? WHen israel is giving all the goodies why not a fusion bomb ? [

no fool will ever hand over a strategic weapon to another country.

 

[Alphacharlie]

Ballistic missile Nasr: A bigger threat from Pakistan : Manoj Joshi, News - India Today

In all the tumult and alarums of the last three months in Pakistan, a grave and threatening development seems to have slipped under our radar screens. Ordinarily, the ballistic missile called Nasr, with a range of 60 kilometres, would not be particularly threatening considering Pakistan's multilayered missile arsenal that covers most of India and beyond. Indeed, in terms of range it is much like our own Russian-supplied Smerch.But that is where the comparisons end.

As the Pakistani Inter-Services Public Relations press release put it: "Nasr, with a range of 60 km, carries nuclear warheads of appropriate yield with high accuracy, shoot and scoot attributes. This quick response system addresses the need to deter evolving threats." In strategic literature, short-range tactical nuclear weapons have been considered particularly destabilising. "A quick response system" is not something you talk about when you discuss nuclear weapons which ought never be used, and if they are, should be employed only in the gravest of national emergencies.

Doctrine

Weapons of such range are held at the level of a Corps which is a large battlefield formation. Many situations can arise at a Corps level battle which may appear to be dire emergencies, but are not so when viewed at a higher level. No doubt the Nasr's employment will be controlled by Pakistan's national command authority, but given their range, they would have to be deployed in the forward edge of battle where the fog of war is thick and the chance of miscalculation high.

Whatever be the case India must confront the issue because it poses a major challenge to how it views nuclear deterrence.India conducted five nuclear tests between May 11 and 13th 1999. On the first day it tested a thermonuclear device, a boosted fission bomb and a 0.2 kiloton device. The thermo-nuclear test seems to have failed and this leaves India with a successful fission bomb design which can, perhaps, be scaled up to 200 kilotons.

Though it does appear that India may have tested a tactical nuclear warhead, subsequently, the official doctrine has decried the idea of tactical nukes.The Indian doctrine, adumbrated through a Cabinet Committee on Security decision on January 4, 2003 noted that India would build and maintain "a credible minimum deterrent" and adopt a "no first use" posture where nuclear weapons would be "used only in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere.

This retaliation would be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage." Clearly, what India is talking about is what is called a counter value strike to hit at industrial and transportation hubs and possibly population centres.This is why the Nasr is such a grave development. Islamabad has categorically rejected the idea of "no first use" of nuclear weapons because of its concerns over Indian conventional superiority.

There has been considerable debate as to its "red lines"- the point beyond which it would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Needless to say, Islamabad has carefully avoided spelling them out.Many have assumed that the red lines would be the threat of our Strike Corps - each with three to four divisions - striking deep into Pakistan cutting its north-south communications links, or endangering a major city. To avoid this, as well as to deal with the kind of challenge the country confronted with the attack on the Parliament House in 2001 and on Mumbai in 2008, the army began talking of a Cold Start doctrine.

In analysing this doctrine, Gurmeet Kanwal has argued that shallow division-sized attacks across the international boundary, with the aim of luring the Pakistan Army and degrading it with massive " ground based aerially delivered" fire power would not cross any red line. However, if Pakistan fields tactical nuclear weapons to counter this, the very definition of red lines would change and, by threatening their use, it would ensure that the Indian army does not mass its firepower for the purpose intended.

The Pakistani determination to field tactical nuclear weapons imposes a huge burden on the Indian nuclear strategy, especially since the country has adopted an ostrich-like approach towards meshing nuclear weapons into our national security strategy. Our nuclear doctrine and posture seems to be more of a PR statement, rather than a strategic position. Its key principle - "no first use" was announced by Prime Minister Vajpayee within weeks of the nuclear tests in 1998. The rest of it, the idea of massive retaliation, development of a triad of forces and so on, was virtually scissored and pasted into a draft doctrine for the benefit of the world community .

Restraint

Just how inadequate it was became apparent in the post Parliament attack confrontation between India and Pakistan, now called Op Parakram. The doctrine had not catered for the simple contingency-Indian forces being struck by nuclear weapons in Pakistani territory. It was for this reason that after the Op Parakaram was called off, the Cabinet Committee on Security met, and the press release issued thereafter constitutes the public statement of our doctrine as of now: that an attack on India or Indian forces anywhere by chemical, nuclear or biological weapons would involve a massive nuclear retaliation.

In 1993, Mumbai was struck by a series of devastating bomb blasts and, more recently, in 2008, the city faced a murderous commando raid. Not only were these some of the deadliest terrorist strikes anywhere in the world, but in both cases India quickly had detailed evidence of official Pakistani involvement, and yet it chose to do nothing.Flowing from this, then, is the obvious question. Would India really destroy Lahore and Karachi if two of its divisions that had invaded Pakistan were subjected to tactical nuclear weapon strikes? Something tells me that we would not. Restraint is a much more enduring feature of the Indian strategic culture than our nuclear doctrine assumes.

Instability

Till now there was an assumption that Pakistan would be a nuclear weapons state like India, China, Russia or the United States had been- seeking stability at the strategic level, even while allowing some instability at a lower level. But, as Professor Shaun Gregory pointed out in an important article this March, Pakistan is not your usual nuclear state.He noted that it differed from other nuclear weapons states in three key ways-first, it is the military and not the civilians who control its nuclear weapons. Second, it is the only such state that backs subnational terrorists and insurgents as a matter of state policy.

And third, and most important, Pakistan was "a revisionist and irredentist state". So, while other states sought nuclear weapons to maintain stability, Pakistan wanted to use them as a tool to generate instability which went against the status quo. So while states have gone out of their way to promote stability after achieving nuclear parity, Pakistan seems to be accumulating nuclear weapons at a rate which bears no relation to the programme of its sole adversary, India. Its weapons holdings have already outpaced India's and will soon approach the level of France and UK. This, then is the challenge India faces.

Islamabad's motive in deploying tactical nuclear weapons is not so much the strategic defence of the country, but a means of preventing India from punishing Pakistan for carrying out acts of terrorism. It already has the weapons and the reach to deter any putative use of nuclear weapons.Unfortunately, New Delhi has been strangely negligent in responding to the rapidly changing nuclear dynamics relating to Pakistan. We have been focusing on terrorism and have ignored the steadily increasing danger of Pakistani nuclear adventurism. Terrorism can kill people by the hundreds, but a nuclear strike's consequences are something else altogether.
manoj. joshi@ mailtoday. in


Read more at: Ballistic missile Nasr: A bigger threat from Pakistan : Manoj Joshi, News - India Today

Sir - Dont HARP on Nukes ALL THE TIME.

We have BMD Capability, We have Second Strike Capability.............

Stop issuing VEILED THREATS - There is a Notion prevelant in Pakitani journalists, That Nukes with Pakistan will save then from Every thing. ................

This "Nuke" was of NO IOTA value in 1999 nor 2002 nor Now..........

Pakistani Generals are well aware of "Mutually Assured Destruction" especially after SLBM system with Indian Navy. ......

Let us assume Pakistan Launches all 110 Nukes on India and Destroys our Main Cities.

In Return Indian Navy with 20 or less Nukes will Finish Main 5 Cities of Pakistan and Impact will be same............Yes, we will loose more Men & Material.

But our STRUCTURAL integrity will Not be at STAKE, which will be for my Neighbor.....

Let, the Nukes be paced where they and some Sanity Prevail.

 

[S-DUCT]

All of you talking of 'nuclear anninilation' need to go back and read about nuclear weapons.

Currently neither india nor Pakistan have fusion weapons,both have only fission nukes.
Fission nukes do not have megaton range power .
For that reason none of the two countries can cause a total annihilation as their nukes are of low yeild.
Any nuclear war between the countries will be tactical,not strategic .

and in that field pakistan has the edge.

Using sub-kt warhead for tactical strike in the pakistan land against IA means getting ready to be nuked by strategic warheads.

The first condition says that, “any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall invoke measures to counter the threat” which doesn’t rule out a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Second, in the clause 2.5 saying, “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers,” the term alliance can be translated into various terms. Like should there be a formal defence pact or a treaty between a nuclear weapon states or mere maintaining diplomatic, economic and cultural ties could also be considered as an alliance. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Iran can be considered as allies of Pakistan with regards to certain issues. Likewise, Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea also forms and alliance with the US and thus qualifies for a nuclear first strike. Finally, clause 2.3a, revised in 2003 states that, “however, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.” This implies that if some UN contingent including few Indian troops is attacked with either a chemical or a biological agent in some of the remotest part of the world, India could retaliate with nuclear weapons.

 

[karan.1970]

Does someone see a correlation here ??

Livefist: 'Combat-proven' Iron Dome At Aero India 2013

 

[acid rain]

What is happening is India is responding militarily to terrorist attacks from Pakistan to which they bring in the US and UN and promise investigations or ask for third party involvement.

Ideally Pakistan's terrorist attacks like parliament and Mumbai attacks and the recent beheading should be returned back with multiple terror attacks by Afg Pak hired guns on Pakistan..

and,
Their military attacks like 48, 65 and Kargil should be responded back by Army.

India should vastly improve its retaliating capabilities on both fronts.

Terror gets Terror in return.
and Military adventurisms get military response.